On the lighter side of the religious debate....

[Arquinsiel]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... c=fb&cc=fp

The URL says it all really.

[Clash of Vision]

I have learned much from the Pastafarians. For instance, there is an inverse relationship between the number of pirates in the world and the rise of glabal warming. I think it is fair to conclude that the decline of the pirate population causes global warming.

That, and I like me some pasta. With meatballs.

[Nephele]

I have been touched by His noodly appendage.

-- Nephele

[demon17]

It got a serious background. People try to avoid the appearance of extra rights for religions, which basically is a restriction of their civil rights.

[Nephele]

It got a serious background. People try to avoid the appearance of extra rights for religions, which basically is a restriction of their civil rights.

That, too.

Here in the U.S., a judge who takes personal offense over parody religions (or even the serious, non-mainstream religions of the neo-pagan community) can react with malice – even to the point of taking your child away from you.

That's what happened to Church of the SubGenius member Rachel Bevilacqua a few years ago:

Woman denied custody of son for participating in SubGenius holiday

The judge, allegedly a very strict Catholic, became outraged at the photos of the X-Day parody of Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ... Judge Punch lost his temper completely, and began to shout abuse at Rachel... The judge ordered that Rachel is to have absolutely no contact with her son, not even in writing, because he felt the pictures of X-Day performance art were evidence enough to suspect “severe mental illness”…

Custody of 10-year-old Kohl was awarded to Rachel's ex-husband (apparently Rachel's participation in The Church of the SubGenius added fuel to an already bitter divorce). Rachel eventually regained custody of her son, but only after a long and expensive court struggle.

A note on "hate crimes"... Because Pastafarians, SubGenii, etc. aren't members of a recognized "protected class" in U.S. law, violence aimed specifically at these people because of their practices does not count as "hate crimes."

-- Nephele

[nachtvlinder]

It got a serious background. People try to avoid the appearance of extra rights for religions, which basically is a restriction of their civil rights.

That, too.

Here in the U.S., a judge who takes personal offense over parody religions (or even the serious, non-mainstream religions of the neo-pagan community) can react with malice – even to the point of taking your child away from you.

That's what happened to Church of the SubGenius member Rachel Bevilacqua a few years ago:

Woman denied custody of son for participating in SubGenius holiday

The judge, allegedly a very strict Catholic, became outraged at the photos of the X-Day parody of Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ... Judge Punch lost his temper completely, and began to shout abuse at Rachel... The judge ordered that Rachel is to have absolutely no contact with her son, not even in writing, because he felt the pictures of X-Day performance art were evidence enough to suspect “severe mental illness”…

Custody of 10-year-old Kohl was awarded to Rachel's ex-husband (apparently Rachel's participation in The Church of the SubGenius added fuel to an already bitter divorce). Rachel eventually regained custody of her son, but only after a long and expensive court struggle.

A note on "hate crimes"... Because Pastafarians, SubGenii, etc. aren't members of a recognized "protected class" in U.S. law, violence aimed specifically at these people because of their practices does not count as "hate crimes."

-- Nephele

Which hate crimes are then protected under US law (with regard to religion)? Only the big religions like christianity, judaism and islam? In their 'official' or commonly practised varieties (whatever that might mean)? And what's the reason behind it? Because it seems a bit strange to protect religions, but not all of them. No matter how weird you think they are.

And how do you interpret the behaviour of judge in the case Nephele mentioned in the light of the seperation of church and state and freedom of (from) religion? Don't both hold in the US? If so, is his behaviour allowed, or was his ruling overuled and he given some kind of sanction? Just wondering

On topic, seeing that story in the newspaper last week made me giggle. And think about talk like a pirate day - although I'm not sure whether that's connected to pastafarianism at all.

[sgath92]

I don't like the fact that two workers could be employed at the same office, with identical piercings and yet the atheist one can & will be terminated for it while the other would be kept on as long as they claimed membership in the "Church of Body Modification." Yet if we got rid of that "protection" instead of both workers being kept on based on the merits of how good of a worker they are, they'd both be fired for their individuality.

Which hate crimes are then protected under US law (with regard to religion)? Only the big religions like christianity, judaism and islam? In their 'official' or commonly practised varieties (whatever that might mean)? And what's the reason behind it? Because it seems a bit strange to protect religions, but not all of them. No matter how weird you think they are.

Only religions that are formally recognized by the federal government are legally speaking religions. If it has no recognition it is not considered a religion.

And how do you interpret the behaviour of judge in the case Nephele mentioned in the light of the seperation of church and state and freedom of (from) religion? Don't both hold in the US? If so, is his behaviour allowed, or was his ruling overuled and he given some kind of sanction? Just wondering

Anything or nothing at all can cause a power tripping judge to make a bad ruling like in the Bevilacqua case. A socially conservative atheist could theoretically have made the same ruling for simply being disgusted at Rachel's personal life choices without religion having anything to do with it. People think of the separation of church & state when it comes to these kinds of topics but what people don't normally notice is that this type of behavior is a typical side effect of power.

People in power will occasionally try to force their views on those they have power over. This is what is meant by the saying that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

All one has to do is look to the games that go on in the private sector when talking about hiring, firing, and promotions. Or with residents under the control of home owner's associations and you can see that this is everywhere in our society without religion's involvement.

[Nephele]

Which hate crimes are then protected under US law (with regard to religion)? Only the big religions like christianity, judaism and islam? In their 'official' or commonly practised varieties (whatever that might mean)? And what's the reason behind it? Because it seems a bit strange to protect religions, but not all of them. No matter how weird you think they are.

I see sgath beat me to this, but what I was about to say is this:

You can read about what constitutes a "protected class" here.

Basically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is supposed to cover religion, but it's the courts that ultimately decide what constitutes a "religion" for the purpose of determining whether or not a "hate crime" has been committed. There have been many examples of people belonging to non-mainstream religions (Wicca and other neo-paganism groups) who have been violently assaulted just for being who they are, but whose claims in court have not always been taken seriously.

People are continually attempting to get various, vulnerable groups recognized as protected classes – many people are even declaring that what happened to Sophie Lancaster in the UK (and we have enough similar examples of our own here in the US) was a hate crime. But goths (or any other members of subcultures) aren't legally recognized as a protected class over here.

I think that the concept of "protected classes" in conjunction with Civil Rights issues was well-intentioned, just as the concept of Affirmative Action was well-intentioned. But I really dislike the whole concept of "protected classes" because it appears to favor accepted groups. I believe that everyone should be equally protected under the law – to the fullest extent of the law.

And how do you interpret the behaviour of judge in the case Nephele mentioned in the light of the seperation of church and state and freedom of (from) religion?

I would interpret that judge's behavior as NOT being impartial -- and for that alone I think he should be removed from public service.

-- Nephele

[demon17]

Many religions are totatlitarian, especially the monotheistic ones. The imagination of an allmighty good legitimises the omnipotence of his deputies on earth. Norms of humanity, fairness, and equality often apply only for the members of the own religion while others are classified as unholy. This principle is still working in our culture and is troublesome restricted by laws. There is just one believe for me. No human beeing is able to understand the divine. So why they don't stop talking about it?

[Midieval Fantasy]

I know getting your child taken away because of your faith can be a real fear. When I was starting to go through my (almost) divorce, I was urged by everyone close to me to get rid of anything remotely pagan and lie to the judge if asked. Judges are suppose to be unbais, but I think it is hard for some to overcome their religious, and even political, beliefs when trying a (nonstandard) case.

Government is suppose to protect 'religions' but they do not always. Bush Jr is a great case in point with his deep set hostility for paganism and to this day he still says is not a religion (at least I assume he does), even though it is a recognized religion.

Nephele: I think...yes, I am...I am going to have to disagree with you. I think Hate Crimes are relevant and needed, in order to protect those who society sees as different until their use is no longer needed. Yes, everyone should be held equal, and not one should be 'protected classes', yet the courts need a way to prosecute such crimes and they allow for harsh sentences. At least they do to my limited awareness.

People need to know that it is never okay to target someone for their beliefs, appearance, or lifestyle.. And that if they do they will be dealt with- harshly. I see it as a fight for tolerance, not a separation of classes.